Would it be scientifically possible to recreate a primitive human ancestor using mode

Cainkane1

Philosopher
Cainkane1
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
9,011
Location
The great American southeast
Would it one day be possible for scientists to take modern human DNA locate the pre modern hominid DNA and using that revitalized genetic material to recreate a say for instance a Homo zinjanthropus? Yes I misspelled that.
 
Our DNA is based on our evolutionary ancestors, but that doesn't mean that their DNA is a subset of ours. Portions of our DNA may be identical to portions of theirs, but portions of their DNA certainly are considerably different from anything in ours.
 
Last edited:
Cainkane1 said:
Would it one day be possible for scientists to take modern human DNA locate the pre modern hominid DNA and using that revitalized genetic material to recreate a say for instance a Homo zinjanthropus? Yes I misspelled that.
Click to expand...

No. For the simple reason that "Homo Zinjanthropus" never existed. The creature you refer to is, I presume Paranthropus Boisei and is a side branch in the hominid line, not an ancestor of humans. It did however live alongside Homo Habilis.
 
Even an ancestor couldn't be recreated that way. The genes that we have that are different from theirs weren't just added on top of theirs. They also replaced some of theirs. The genes of theirs that got replaced, or were otherwise just lost, simply don't exist anymore.
 
What are the chances of recovering enough of their DNA from fossils or the like?
 
gtc said:
What are the chances of recovering enough of their DNA from fossils or the like?
Click to expand...

From fossils? Absolutely nil. Most fossils are rocks, with almost none of the original organic matter remaining.

We have enough trouble getting DNA from the frozen neanderthal remains we have found.
 
I would assume that maybe the op was referring to Otzi, although I cant be sure, and I don't know if he would qualify.
 
politas said:
From fossils? Absolutely nil. Most fossils are rocks, with almost none of the original organic matter remaining.

We have enough trouble getting DNA from the frozen neanderthal remains we have found.
Click to expand...

Do we have much neanderthal DNA?

Also, are there other sources of DNA?
 
Damien Evans said:
No. For the simple reason that "Homo Zinjanthropus" never existed. The creature you refer to is, I presume Paranthropus Boisei and is a side branch in the hominid line, not an ancestor of humans. It did however live alongside Homo Habilis.
Click to expand...

Damien is quite correct. P. Boisei is not an ancestor. If you were ever to encounter one, you might think you were looking at something like an upright gorilla. They made no tools and ate mostly vegetation. It would be an interesting encounter, though.

Homo neanderthalensis DNA has been sequenced and there is some hope that DNA will be retrieved from Homo floresiensis teeth.

ETA: Cool Paranthropus boisei images:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/images/md/paranthropus-boisei.jpg

http://www.nmb.bs.ch/paranthropus.jpg
 
Last edited:
Note that we also don't currently have the technology to clone something using just a chunk of DNA.
 
I found this interesting article:

Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6593.full

They have compared mitochondrial DNA from Cro Magnons (early examples of modern humans), Neanderthals and present day humans. They've found the Cro Magnons fit with present humans but that the Neanderthals are substantially different. This supports the replacement theory - that modern humans recently came out of Africa and replaced the existing populations in Europe. Although, I don't think this paper rules out some form of inter-breeding but not significant amounts.

I haven't looked at this in years, so please excuse any errors.
 
INRM said:
What's a 'zinjanthropus'?
Click to expand...

Zinjanthropus boisei was the original name chosen for Paranthropus boisei by its discoverer Mary Leakey and her husband, Louis Leakey. Zinj was an ancient region of the East African Zanj. Also the "boisei" was chosen in recognition of their team's financier, Charles Boise. The binomial can be translated as "Zinj Man of Boise."

The name was later changed to Australopithecus boisei (Southern Ape of Boise) and finally Paranthropus boise (Beside Man of Boise). In Greek "para" means "beside" and "anthropos" means "human." This was chosen to reflect the fact tha P. boisei was of a line of robust Australopichecines which existed alongside the gracile Australopithecines that are direct ancestors in the line that would ultimately result in modern humans.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
The name was later changed to Australopithecus boisei (Southern Ape of Boise) and finally Paranthropus boise (Beside Man of Boise). In Greek "para" means "beside" and "anthropos" means "human." This was chosen to reflect the fact tha P. boisei was of a line of robust Australopichecines which existed alongside the gracile Australopithecines that are direct ancestors in the line that would ultimately result in modern humans.
Click to expand...

They can't simply change the name like that on a whim. Either you are retelling this history in a simplified way, or the people who did this feel that human relatives are above the rules of the ICZN. Which is it? I am assuming the former, but would appreciate some clarification.
 
Kotatsu said:
They can't simply change the name like that on a whim. Either you are retelling this history in a simplified way, or the people who did this feel that human relatives are above the rules of the ICZN. Which is it? I am assuming the former, but would appreciate some clarification.
Click to expand...

http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/oh5.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_australopithecine

Basically, OH5, a Paranthropus Skull nicknamed nutcracker man was dug up by the Leakys in east africa in 1955. Louis Leaky named it Zinjanthropus because he felt it was sufficiently different from the previously discovered Paranthropus Robustus (found in south africa in the 1920s) to deserve its own genus. Later research showed this not to be the case, and, as Paranthropus had priority it was changed to that. But then the experts decided that paranthropus and australopithecus were similar enough to be one genus, and lumped them under australopithecus, as that had priority. In the last 15 years Paranthropus has once again been separated into its own genus, after re-examination concluded that there were enough differences to warrant separate genus for both Paranthropus and Australopithecus.

Don't you just love fossil classification?:D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom